Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Coronavirus - worldwide breaking news, discussion, stats, updates and more

Interpret this for me:

Jambo is exploring the hypothesis that Africans have had more exposure to other coronaviruses that cause little more than colds in humans, which may provide some defense against COVID-19.

e2a: The emboldened words, not the data.

I interpret that as humans in Africa had more exposure to other coronaviruses that cause little more than colds.
 
Ok. This wasn't meant to be a trap. Having emboldened the words 'in humans' in the unedited version of the post, I thought it would be clear.

I'd have thought that Africans are humans.
 
Unfortunately I suspect this take will age badly in any case. :(

I suspect the reason why it hasn't hit as hard is due to lack of travel links and less population density (in Namibia where my mum grew up, it is larger than the uk yet only has around 2 million people). There's evidence that there's a lack of testing going on in some places too. I'm also guessing that in many parts of Africa, people are spending more time outdoors too which isn't ideal for the virus .

Some studies suggest that most people with covid don't actually spread it to large numbers of people if at all, so it actually takes large numbers of people arriving in a destination to cause a big outbreak, and if somewhere gets few visitors there might be one or two people arriving with COVID-19 and recovering without causing a huge issue.
 
Good question. Its purely anecdotal when I look at the UK who is known as the sick man of Europe anyway. Then the US and Central and a lot of South America have significant obesity problem and the problems associated with obesity (type 2 diabetes being a key one). Obviously a lot of other factors involved in each country but the concept of being in good health before contracting the virus will give the best chance of survival has never really been in doubt as far as I can see.


Although there are a lot of reports from people who are self reporting ongoing symptoms many months after the acute stage, who also report that they were very fit indeed prior to infection.

There are several Facebook pages I’m a member of where “long haulers” - as they call themselves - discuss their experience, and many of them say that they were previously exercising regularly, from weekly yoga up to marathon level fitness and all points between.

There is a lot of discussion and speculation about long haul symptoms, and of course this is a self-selecting sample and they’re all self reporting, but there does seem to be something peculiar and worrying going on, especially amongst people who weren't so unwell during the acute stage as to need medical intervention. There does seem to be a correlation between fitness and long-term ongoing chronic inflammation issues following Covid-19.

 
Coronaviridae are zoonotic. Like the papers cited, the literature differentiates human/avian/feline/chiroptine/etc coronaviruses and their varying effects across species.

Exactly. Its really unexceptional to see 'in humans' used in this context.

Searches for terms such as "coronaviruses in humans" yields plenty of results, for good reasons.

There are a bunch of reasons for this. One of them is that viruses we associate with respiratory diseases in humans may have different prominent symptoms and different main mode of transmission in animal hosts. eg animals getting the shits as the main feature and transmission via the faecal oral route.
 
Last edited:
I take your point Mation, but I read it exactly as elbows has described.

Academic language is different to every day language, and can seem clumsy or overly specific.

Like papers that talk about “mortality and morbidity”. And the attention that was given to the word “outcome” earlier, which means a specific thing in medical terms, which is different to how it is used in lay terms.



But yes, that article could have - or maybe should have - phrased it differently; and the question speaks to deep and problematic issues.
 
I take your point Mation, but I read it exactly as elbows has described.

Academic language is different to every day language, and can seem clumsy or overly specific.

Like papers that talk about “mortality and morbidity”. And the attention that was given to the word “outcome” earlier, which means a specific thing in medical terms, which is different to how it is used in lay terms.



But yes, that article could have - or maybe should have - phrased it differently; and the question speaks to deep and problematic issues.
I'm familiar with academic language having published original research papers in high impact neuroscience and psychophysics journals, and having worked in science communication for a decade.

This really wasn't meant to be a trap, and it's actually getting pretty upsetting now. The sentence basically says on the one hand Africans and on the other hand humans. It's not that I don't understand how you read it, but there is a bias in the way it was phrased that you (and others) obviously can't see.

Please don't make it worse by assuming that I'm the one who doesn't understand. It's a bias you missed. Examine it. Or don't, but don't patronise me with it.

(Not just you.)
 
I’d forgotten that you have scientific and academic experience and I apologise for that, and also for the resulting patronising tone in my post.

I did say that I take your point and I understand the issue. I fully agree that the language in the article is problematic. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.

I gave it the benefit of the doubt because (I thought) I had interpreted it entirely and only in the context of academic language. However in light of the ongoing discussion I am now examining my own position and thought processes, and I’m grateful to you for pursuing and clarifying the issue.
 
I’d forgotten that you have scientific and academic experience and I apologise for that, and also for the resulting patronising tone in my post.

I did say that I take your point and I understand the issue. I fully agree that the language in the article is problematic. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.

I gave it the benefit of the doubt because (I thought) I had interpreted it entirely and only in the context of academic language. However in light of the ongoing discussion I am now examining my own position and thought processes, and I’m grateful to you for pursuing and clarifying the issue.
Thank you. And yes, you did say you took my point, so that part of my reply was unfair to you. I mentally amalgamated everyone's responses. Apologies.
 
This really wasn't meant to be a trap, and it's actually getting pretty upsetting now. The sentence basically says on the one hand Africans and on the other hand humans. It's not that I don't understand how you read it, but there is a bias in the way it was phrased that you (and others) obviously can't see.

Please don't make it worse by assuming that I'm the one who doesn't understand. It's a bias you missed. Examine it. Or don't, but don't patronise me with it.

(Not just you.)

I have experienced mental anguish from situations where thinly disguised bias was completely invisible to some people whose refusal to see it caused further despair.

I dont understand how I could possibly see the sentence in question as an example though.

Jambo is exploring the hypothesis that Africans have had more exposure to other coronaviruses that cause little more than colds in humans, which may provide some defense against COVID-19.

That sentence is in no way differentiating Africans from humans. They are talking about coronaviruses that are perceived to cause no more than colds in humans, including all the humans of Africa. There is no concept of one hand, other hand in that part of the sentence.

The difference that is mentioned in that sentence is the idea that Africans may have had more exposure to such coronaviruses than people in other parts of the world. They experience them as colds, like all humans.
 
I have experienced mental anguish from situations where thinly disguised bias was completely invisible to some people whose refusal to see it caused further despair.

I dont understand how I could possibly see the sentence in question as an example though.



That sentence is in no way differentiating Africans from humans. They are talking about coronaviruses that are perceived to cause no more than colds in humans, including all the humans of Africa. There is no concept of one hand, other hand in that part of the sentence.

The difference that is mentioned in that sentence is the idea that Africans may have had more exposure to such coronaviruses than people in other parts of the world. They experience them as colds, like all humans.
It is clear that you can't see it, yes. And since you know what it feels like to see a bias that's invisible to others, why would you not just leave it at, ok I don't see it but maybe I'll think about it? (Not as a post to me, but as a thought to yourself.)

We've already established that the point you think I haven't understood could be conveyed perfectly well without using the added 'in humans' or, imo, losing any of its style. I hope we've also established that this isn't about the general use of the term in papers about humans.

The fact that you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
 
What additional thought an I going to give it? I am someone who has gone on about other coronaviruses that cause colds in humans myself, and it is not language I would dream of shying away from.
 
What additional thought an I going to give it? I am someone who has gone on about other coronaviruses that cause colds in humans myself, and it is not language I would dream of shying away from.
None. Clearly.

whoosh
 
I spent time considering the sentence and what it actually said and already gave my thoughts on that. And now I feel badly hurt, a feeling which is not going to improve the quality of my output. Now I will attempt to get over it without feeling the need to spew many defensive words.
 
I spent time considering the sentence and what it actually said and already gave my thoughts on that. And now I feel badly hurt, a feeling which is not going to improve the quality of my output. Now I will attempt to get over it without feeling the need to spew many defensive words.
Wow.
 
To me, the test would be whether this works equally as well:

Jambo is exploring the hypothesis that Europeans have had more exposure to other coronaviruses that cause little more than colds in humans, which may provide some defense against COVID-19.
 
To me, the test would be whether this works equally as well:
The honest answer is that I'd probably just have found it funny as a sentence that contrasts humans with Europeans (and would still want to see it re-written).

It's probably the combination of me being an English teacher who is very sensitive to how racial stuff is phrased and also having a science background.

If it had occurred to me that the phrasing wouldn't be obviously read the same way I did, I probably wouldn't have posted it on this particular thread.
 
Here is the paper that that bit of the article comes from:


And the part in question:

The last hypothesis is that a population across Africa has some level of SARS-CoV-2 immunity because of prior exposure to other coronaviruses. As with SARS-COV-2, a spillover of zoonotic coronaviruses into the human population has been recorded several times before, and mounting evidence suggests that other strains closely related to human coronaviruses are circulating within bat populations in Africa and elsewhere.2832 Although a novel outbreak of coronavirus has not been reported in the region, the continuous contact between bats, livestock, and humans in rural Africa may have resulted in exposure to these emergent coronaviruses and development of humoral cross-reactivity.21 Antibodies that target conserved epitopes across virus families have been identified in humans, as shown for filoviruses where identification of antibodies that cross-neutralize multiple Ebolaviruses resulted in the development of promising pan-Ebolavirus therapeutic antibodies.

Wow at me all you like Mation, you made a mistake and I'm not going to learn much from it.
 
Other than the pain of false accusations that is, aaaaararrrghhhhhh the pain. It sucks. I'm sorry that the article caused you pain, and that my interpretation of it added to the pain rather than helping it diminish. Now how do I get rid of my pain?
 
Here is the paper that that bit of the article comes from:


And the part in question:



Wow at me all you like Mation, you made a mistake and I'm not going to learn much from it.
The paper isn't written in the same way as the article, and doesn't seem biased, you're right. I wasn't talking about the paper, though. There is a bias in how the article was phrased. And I also have a bias in seeing it, both personally and professionally.
 
The paper isn't written in the same way as the article, and doesn't seem biased, you're right. I wasn't talking about the paper, though. There is a bias in how the article was phrased. And I also have a bias in seeing it, both personally and professionally.

Thanks for explaining. I hope you dont mind if we zoom in further to the area of confusion as I think we are close to some sort of resolution. Something you said in response to two sheds test of converting the sentence to mention Europeans instead of Africans might be the key:

The honest answer is that I'd probably just have found it funny as a sentence that contrasts humans with Europeans (and would still want to see it re-written).

Its the 'contrasts' bit. I dont see which part of the contentious sentence in question actually involves making that sort of contrast at all. I know absolutely nothing about how to teach English. What sort of sentence structures can be used to contrast things? Whatever they are, I have struggled to find them in the sentence in question, and so we have found ourselves having this conversation today. I'm sorry it didnt go very well :(
 
This isn’t a good look elbows

It was honest and all I could manage at the time. I thought it might be better to express pain and anguish that I felt directly, rather than just have it sponsor all manner of other crap spilling out of my gob. You are of course entitled to your opinion that it is not a good look, but it is mine and genuine and I will own it.
 
Back
Top Bottom